Time Explained

[Spiked Blood]

Motion is the beginning, prior to that there was just everything immobile. With motion comes the notion of time like a rhyme. That the universe could not be here is not something I can fathom. t=0 is not the beginning of our universe.

[Tormod]

Motion is the beginning, prior to that there was just everything immobile. With motion comes the notion of time like a rhyme. That the universe could not be here is not something I can fathom. t=0 is not the beginning of our universe.

 

This simply makes the issue a classical problem: what was the original mover. It does not solve the question of what time is.

[Farsight]

Ouch, I didn't mean to sound arrogant Tormod, and I surely I didn't suggest that time dilation doesn't occur did I?

 

As to whether the Universe got off to a flying start, I guess the answer is yes to the best of our understanding, regardless of whether you say it was at t=0 or I say t is not fundamental.

 

Can you tell me more about time as a physical property? A particle might have mass, spin, charge, wavelength, etc, and I can measure its momentum. But in all honesty, I can no longer see any time.

[Spiked Blood]

This simply makes the issue a classical problem: what was the original mover. It does not solve the question of what time is.

 

I think I get it. Many scientists don't believe that there is such a thing. The problem is, the concept of time is so ingrained in science, in theory and mechanics, how do you remove it while still maintaining the integrity of the science it is a part of.

 

Is that correct, or am I in the deep end without a paddle...again?

[arkain101]

After all these days on these forums and all the topics related to time, I have come to think that time must be looked at like energy. Not in direct sense but in the word definition sense.

 

Energy can do work.

 

Time contains change.

 

Energy has many forms;

 

Kinetic

Potential

Light

Heat

etc.

 

The simularity is here, in that, time has different forms.

 

-Time as a fundamental function entwined in the grand mechanics of the universe, refered to as a dimension of its own respect.

 

-Time as a measurmeant of the mechanics that occur in the universe but not entwined in the fundamental operation. ex: Time would be appliabled in the macroscopic but appropiately removable from the micro atomic level.

 

-Time as a line in which events are imprinted upon, saved/recorded, played out, and yet to come, the past the present, and the future. Assumptions that say it is a grand memory bank of sorts that one can travel through to reach specific destinations, of both past, and of future.

 

-Time as a mental concept, no intwined with the mechanics of the universe. Here there is only now, and the very concept of time is relative to the vibration of memory in the mind of the observer. This is, that the passing of time is completely reflected upon the ways in which the observer is comparing the experience to existing memories in his mind. Thus it becomes a relative flow which can become infinite in passing and nearly zero in passing.

[arkain101]

Extension of thoughts.

 

When you discuss time you must refer to which base of the version you are using while expressing your thoughts, much in the same way as when you speak of energy.

 

The problem is, the concept of time is so ingrained in science, in theory and mechanics, how do you remove it while still maintaining the integrity of the science it is a part of.

 

As for removing time from the very fundamental forumula of modern physics, it may be possible in a sense.

 

I say in a sense because it is depending upon which base of time version you are observing or basing your opinion from.

 

If there is a minimum length, and a maximum speed, which there is, than, respectively there is a scale of time that can be applied to this scale of size and motion.

 

I think that in order to remove time, you must look to constants.

 

In the above I expressed that time is a form of a constant, in the way that it may only be expressed in periods so small and so large in accordance with minimum length and constrained velocity. Thus it may be a measurement that can be measured to flow at a constant rate in comparison to the fundamental constancies in the mechanics of the universe.

 

Thus to replace time as a constant one must only use a similar constant or refer to time as an expression of an existing constant found in the universe. one example is that lights constancy may be used to re-express the fabric of time or understanding of time, or infact replace time all together in describing the forumla.

 

Time itself is used in the expressing the constant of the speed of light. However the very constant of the light is I think infact responsible for the tool of 'time' in order to then measure itself. If we stop refering to the passing change of things as the flow of the passing of time, and refer to the constant of light as the cause of the rate of the change of things. Furthermore, use the constancy of light as a new fundamental reference, then one should be able to re-express the formula that works the mechanics of the operation of the universe.

 

As an example. I have velocity. With time I am measured to travel distance (x) in time (t). Without time, I am measured to travel % distance in comparison to light from origin point to destination point. So to use the finite scale of motion with the constant of light, instead of the finite scale of time with the constant of the flow of time for all things of mass.

[Farsight]

Sorry Arkain. Time isn't like energy.

[arkain101]

Surely its not. The use of the word, needs to be clearly and concisely expressed before setting out in discussing the term.

[CHADS]

If you Remove time , physics works instantaneously .

If there is a mass then surly we must incorperate time as a definition of the elapse of moments within any system .

 

As you just count the moments of displacements from its origional position without time then all systems must end togeather..

They cant becuase then there would be no guiness book of records ahhaha.

I think.

[infamous]

Forgive me if I make this sound too simple but, time is an abstraction which is an illusion created by the mind of man. In it's simplest form, time is nothing more than change. Even when one talks about the effects of velocity causing time dilation, it can be more easily understood as change dilation. Time is not an absoulute, it dosen't have a fixed pace nor can it be measured the same by different observers when different velocities are involved. The illusion of time is useful only when measuring change and not much good for anything else. Take for example the photon. If you could hitch a ride on a photon, say issuing from our sun, you would experience absolutely no passage of time or more correctly, change, from your start till you reached earth. However, observing that same photon from an observer on earth, approx. 8 minutes would pass. If the classical mind tries to rationalize the difference in time, approx. 8 minutes, a parodox arises. The classical mind asks, how can zero time and approx. 8 minutes occur simutaineously? The answer is, ofcourse, that time is not the consistent value here but the variable. And if it varies, cannot be an absolute. Therefore, time is an illusion and it is change in state caused by velocity that affects our perception............................Infy

[arkain101]

interesting read.

[InfiniteNow]

Forgive me if I make this sound too simple but, time is an abstraction which is an illusion created by the mind of man.

My question is better suited to philosophy, so please treat as rhetorical or open new thread, but I ask, what in the vastness is not?

[Farsight]

Space.

[skuzie]

Forgive me if I make this sound too simple but, time is an abstraction which is an illusion created by the mind of man. In it's simplest form, time is nothing more than change.

 

Ahh my thoughts exactly, im pretty sure ive said that way back in another time discussion. If there are no creatures to experience time then time has no meaning, there is only change at its essence. Imagine a virtual environment, you program a complex environment with all sorts or laws and constants governing its structure, then you click on start and you let the environment play out its course according to the rules you created .. basically you've introduced change. Now introduce these self aware beings that are aware of their environment as things change .. these beings experience time .. to you as the creator it is nothing but change, past, present, and the future has no meaning.

[arkain101]

It does appear we give a meaning to time, I agree.

 

Without us, any event may happen, pretty much at any time because nothing is there to measure the change.

 

However even with all life gone, would it not be possible to say that it will still obey the law of physics while we are not there to suggest the present?

 

Umm, I suppose I mean, in otherwords, Can a present exist without life?

Do we generate a present, a now? or the present us?

 

In a sense there may be no NOW moment without including us. So it may be that the universe has no time in its own respect. An infinite like system. However having us here gives us the ability to experience now, thus together we end up with "infinite now" which is a concept I am a fan of.

[Boerseun]

Without us, any event may happen, pretty much at any time because nothing is there to measure the change.

A tree falling in the forest with no one around, still makes a noise. That's the extent of this argument. And you can place tape recorders and play it back afterwards, and you will hear a tree falling. And using the fossil record as an indication, there is a definite sequence of events, so that things don't simply happen 'at any time' in lieu of human observers.

 

In the absence of any human observers, time did exist, simply not for humans.

A dinosaur's jawbone and teeth is also a good example of time existing. It does, after all, take some time to chew something.

 

In my mind, time is the Universe's way of preventing all things from happening at once (Dougie Adams or Terry Pratchett - can't remember who came up with it). Time is much more mysterious than simply making it dependent on human observers. I don't think the universe was made for us, and I don't think time only exists for us.

[Farsight]

I agree with boerseun, arkain. What I've been saying means there is only a now, because of the laws of physics, regardless of how we experience things, and regardless of any language we use when we talk about the past or future in terms of length or direction.

 

For example, we can do experiments with a clock at the equator and see it lose time compared to a clock at the pole, but both clocks are still here and now whatever their readings.

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-06/6-06.htm